Posts made by Crossover

Hi,

I checked game 7  - i was impressed - much better than game 1.

to find out what  went wrong is quite easy:

If Germany loses Norway + Finland there has to be done everything to deny the Russians access to the 10 IPC Bonus, which means Bulgaria + Poland should be fortified heavily. And what happend ? Russia got 47 IPC round 3 + 45 IPC round 4 - game over.

I tried to find out, why Germany was so weak on the Eastern front: Then I saw it - you wanted to keep UK + US out of France and pilled up units there. Exactly that units you did have on the Eastern front.

Well it’s always hard to play Germany/Italy if alle 3 Allies go for you, but i would prefer hand out UK + US the 5 IPC bonus for France instead of the 10 IPC for Russia.

Don’t forget UK can only buy 8 units at London, once they have a fleet + 4 Transports, they need only 32 IPC/round (4 Inf + 4 armour), so don’t care about Uk, give them the 5 IPC for France and kick them out of Europe in your next turn.  Even a UK with 70 IPC is not as dangerous as a Russia with 45 IPC, cause UK can’t use that money, while Russia can. Russia is the one the Axis have to kill.

But in overall it was a good game, if you have that units not in France but in EPL, you will get another 5 IPC bonus and Russia will not have that money. So far the strategy check. in overall: Holding France is interesting, but does not work if all Allies play a KGF strategy. Better expand quickly on the Eastern Front, kick out Allies from France and later carefully pull back to protect Germany + Italy, but then Japan is near Russia capital. With a better buying as Italy (4 inf instead of a bomber) it would have been harder for the Allies to capture Rome.

Some details:

• attacking Egypt as Germany without the bomber  - unwise,  losses are too high, just for strafing purpose

• Buying a bomber for Italy = crap

• Buying 1 Transport + 2 armour for Japan in Round - i don’t link it, I prefer an immediate IC in manchuria, which is always strong, but even stronger when US doesn’t bother you (as happened here)

• The IC on an 4 IPC Island is interesting, but you always require transports and that transports require cover. I don’t like that, better build that IC in India. However, that’s not the reason for the Axis defeat, it was the income of Russia which makes it too hard for Japan to pressure such a rich Russia quickly.

• if you have so many transports as Japan, conquer Hawaii + Wake island ( means - 5 IPC for US, as it’s a bonus)

• do not repair Rome if you have already 9 IPC damage. wait one round, send German tanks + fighter for shelter. It’s highly unattractive for the Allies to bomb a damaged Italian factory when the odds of making a maximum of 3 IPC damage is worse than the loss of a bomber to an AA hit. Next round repair and buy 6 units for Italy. Remember 12 is the maximum damage for Rome, from then on they can’t harm you any more. If you repair every round they bomb you again every round. better repair every second round !

• I don’t like your German first round attacks on the eastern front

You have two possibilities: either conquer that strong that any counterattack is crazy or that weak, that you do not lose much. Especially that tank you lose in Ukraine counterattack is a bitter loss.

Some Ideas to improve: Ukraine - is the most critical battle - why ? Well in G1 NCM you can move some units from Germany to Poland.
This means if Russia attacks either EPL or BST that support units from Poland will immediately be useful for another attack in G2.
Unfortunately for you Ukraine is harder to re-attack in G2 as you can’t bring units to Bulgaria in G1.

So either: “the weak attack”

3 Inf + 1 Art + 1 fighter vs 2 Inf in Ukraine

Goal, kill 2 units and get 2 IPC income

or: “the hard attack” 3 Inf + 1 art + 3 tanks in Ukraine

Goal: make a counterattack impossible

––

If you do the hard attack, do the other battles that way:

3 tanks + 3 Inf to EPL

Inf + art  + 1 fighter + 2 units transported (1 Inf from NWE + 1 Inf from Germany) + Cruiser Bombardment for BST

NCM: 2 Inf + art to Poland

Yes Russia can attack in BST, but a) it’s only a 1 IPC territory, while Ukraine is worth 2 IPC, b) BST is reachable for all German air units, while Ukraine is too far (at least to land somewhere to threaten UKs fleet for G3) and c) your Poland units can attack BST in G2.

Try it !
GL & HF

Hi Bongaroo,

I only checked the first game, but i got some information for you:

1. maybe you did not see that Russian sub attack against the cruiser, but to move the cruiser + the transport to fight that lone destroyer is a mistake imo. Leave the cruiser + transport where they are and transport two units from Germany to assist the Baltic States attack.

attack the destroyer with 1 sub + 1-2 fighters

2. don’t land the attacking fighter in France, land in Norway

3. Land all other planes that way, that you can destroy any new build British fleet, if it’s too weak

Some Examples:

1 bomber + 4 fighters vs 1 BB + 1 DD + 1 AC + 2 Fighters:

Pathetic 3,8 % that you win with 1 unit left and 7,4% that all units are killed (about 11% overall), but 89% of losing with at least the BB surviving.

Only one Bomber more for Germany:

2 bombers + 4 fighters vs 1 BB + 1 DD + 1 AC + 2 Fighters:

64% of WINNING with at least one unit left, 19% of clearing (about 83% overall) and only 17% of losing.

What a difference ! Buy 1 Bomber/round as Germany if you see UK + US are going against you as long it makes sense, then stop and buy other units, maybe inf + tanks.  –> see 8 )

4. If UK buys heavy fleet, as they did in that game it’s good news for the Axis:
   You Know, that UK is mainly focusing on Germany/Italy and may help out Russia when in trouble (UK fighters can Reach Moscow in 1 turn starting in London). They did not buy any IC in SA, India or Australia. Good news for Japan ! That makes it easier for Germany to play, as Allies already revealed their plans.

5. Consider buying an IC as Japan and place it either Manchuria or FIC. This IC is useful in any case, it’s good if UK builds an India IC, it’s perfect if UK + US play in Europe and even when US is playing 100% in the Pacific an IC on the Asian mainland is very strong (as your transport otherwise need constantly protection)

6. NEVER attack with 1 Fighter vs 1 DD + Transport - far too risky. Use 2 Fighters. Better delay one or two attacks against China, they can wait. Killing all US and UK fleets is more important.

If you see round 1 a 100% US Atlantic buy, Japan has to play very aggressive, buy 2 ICs (FIC and Manchuria), take all your fleet, conquer Australia + Hawaii + another US island (kill one of US and UK bonus and get one yourself for Hawaii), then head with your fleet directly towards India and Egypt and help in Europe

7. Anyway, you got good dice rolls as Germany and Japan, but screwed up Axis play in Italy 1. The Ukraine attack was too weak and losing a plane as Italy when taking back France is out of question. Buy a second fighter as Italy in round 1 and mass your troops in Italy, so you are strong enough for another recapture of France in R2. If UKs fleet is going to the Med, just buy an AC in round 2 and land your 2 fighters on it. UK will not have enough fire power to attack an Italian fleet of 1 BB, 2 Cr + 1 full AC. If they can’t kill Italy’s fleet that UK fleet is wrongly placed in the Med and should better conquer Norway. Then go for Africa to get more income as Italy.

8 ) If you see UK + US heading for Europe, don’t buy so many tanks as Germany. Better go for Infantry and air units. If Germany constantly buy air units, especially bombers UK and US will have problems to cover their fleets. If they buy heavily naval units, good news! UK can buy only 8 units in London, this means, they will not have 4 fully transports quickly. Once you see you can not threaten that fleets any more, start Bombing London + Moscow. Play defensively as Germany. Build masses of units and hold of the Allies as long as possible. In round 4 Japan should have conquered Northern Russia, all China, India, the whole Pacific and is moving it’s fleet towards Italy to support, while 3 ICs (India, FIC and Manchuria) are building lot’s of offensive units every round. The Allies will have a hard time against such a Japanese Monster if the fail to break down Fortress Europe !

9. As Germany is the Target for all Allies, you need strong air for either protect Germany itself, but mainly to trade in a good ratio.
   If you attack with  just a few infantry and masses of fighters and bombers, you can wipe out large attack forces. This will slow down the Russians on the Eastern Front while prevent UK + US to get a foothold in France.

Try it and you will soon win your first games as Axis, since AA50 with NOs naturally favors the Axis. You need some bidding for the Allies to balance the game.

Multinational forces would make the Allies win too easily, such as happened in history. We want a board game that every side can win.

Making this game more historical would make it boring. To be accurate you have to give US about 55-60 IPC on the pacific side and about 50 IPC on the atlantic side. The Allies will always win, such as happened in reality. But would you like that kind of game ?

Even more: you would have to customize all units: German Tanks should cost 6 IPC but attack at 4. US and UK tanks cost just 4 IPC but attack and defend only at a 2. German infantry should cost 4 IPC but attack at 2 ,3 with artillery, while Russian infantry just cost 1 IPC and is an 1/1/1 unit (see battle of Stalingrad where Russian soldiers were sacrificed as cannon fodder). German fighters had just 3 movement while UK and US fighters had 4-5 range. Rules would become even more complicated, and believe me it is already complicated ! You can’t start a game with beginners without about 30 minutes of rule explaining and at this forum the rule clarify section is the most visited one with the most replies…

Despite all that, you are right, but it’s not a flaw, it was planned this way to balance the game.

Hi Commander Jennifer,

first, this post is about closing tripleA by Hasbro which sucks. They are afraid people not going to buy their games but simply play AaA online. They did not consider that friends next door will never play it online, they just meet and play. But if you don’t have someone to play with, why buy that game ?? The online version is a good opportunity to find players and just play. It’s a shame for Hasbro after years of experience with Axis & Allies and its potential buyers to not have foreseen this trend and missed to place their own online product.

as a second point: You are completely wrong. Better players tend to not play with technology, because that kind of game play requires 100% strategic skills and better players have that know-how.
As an easy example: a complete stupid player researchs some overwhelming techs, such as LRA and HB, simply builds bombers and kick the crap out of Germany and Italy. Tell me what special skills does that kind of gameplay require? Absolutely nothing! Every idiot can play like that ( I am not saying that people that play like that are idiots, i say everyone can simply play like that!). Compare this with an US player having a strong fleet against Japan, cleverly uses the starting planes from all his ACs doing some action and land on some allied-controlled islands, while newly build fighters land on the now empty ACs after some action. Or playing the Allies combined, such as UK captures an island, while US is landing masses of fighters on it, preventing Japan from recapturing that island. This is skilled gameplay, not researching heavy bombers. - My Opinion -

maybe this was discussed already somewhere - i just ask:

In AA revised rulebook page 22 it’s clearly mentioned a newly build carrier may pick up fighters that ended their non-combat movement or have already been in the country with the IC that build the new AC. This means you could use your fighters in combat phase fly 2 spaces away, return on NC phase and the new AC picks them up.

In AA50 rule book i can’t find this rule - has it been removed, and if - why ?

aa50, with NOs, no tech, with bidding for allies to balance the game

in this case the Italian fleet is already in real danger.

That’s how it works:

Bidding 3 IPC: Uk places one infantry in Egypt. Turn 1 Germany it is impossible to kill all units in Egypt, especially with no luck.
That UK fighter normally survives. Now on Turn 1 Uk, there is an attack with UK Bomber, Egypt fighter und Gibraltar naval units (destroyer + cruiser) against the Italian fleet with an 60% of winnig and a much higher chance to simply kill that fleet even when losing all attacking units.

Yes, losing the fighter and bomber hurts UK, but get that fleet destroyed simply kills Italy. No hope of NOs, Africa gone forever there’s not fun at all to play Italy !

So it seems forced that Germany has to attack that destroyer + cruiser with subs  + air units, to help the Italians.

If bids get higher, the problems rise too: a 9 IPC bid, Uk can place one inf to Egypt and one sub to that DD + Cr fleet.

Anyone experienced that? What do you do in that situation as Germany ?

we usually play aa50 with NOs, no tech

we have the impression US will be only strong when spending 90% or more in one region, either for Europe or Pacific.
On the other way, for all players it’s more interesting and more fun if US plays everywhere, as happend in WWII.

Unfortunately US funds does not allow that kind of play, a 50% spend means your too weak for Europe and you will never threaten Japan.So this looks good at a first glance, but it’s waste of time and money and leads to frustration to the Allies player.

Our Idea:

Dividing US !

That would be an Idea for a new AA version or TripleA sceanrio.

The eastern US forces get their own NOs for Europe and Africa, a higher income, 10 - 15 IPC, but they can only build and play in the Atlantic and Europe/Africa

The western US forces get their own NOs for Pacific and Asia, a higher income, at least 15 - 20 IPC, but they can only build and play in the Pacific and Asia

Both get units of a diferent colour to seperate them from each other, they can’t attack together as well.

Move Order ist new: you play western US completely and after placing units, the eastern US will be played.

That’s the same concept as dividing Germany into Germany and Italy in AA50.

For obious reasons that US nations need more money as US has now as a united country, how much is questionable of course. I would like to see the US competitive in both Atlanic and Pacific at the same time, but of course much weaker as now, when US spends 100% in one region. Some rules have to be defined as well, one thing that should not happen is, that one side is building air units and fly through US to support the other side (e.g. fighters that land on the other ACs).

what do you think of that idea ?

maybe I should make a little change in the definition of VIUs

there are two types of VIUs

a) potential VIUs

b) all time VIUs

all time VIUs are e.g. the German bomber or that US fleet in SZ 44 which can be helpful in the Atlantik as well as the Pacific. Italys fleet is also useful in every game, obviously. UKs fighter and tank in Egypt are always VIUs, Axis powers should destroy them if possible.

German naval units are potential VIUs, as in a non-naval-strategy they will be exposed for UK air attack an often destroyed in the first rounds.
UKs units in Australia, South Africa and India are potential VIUs as well, depending on UKs overall strategy and newly build ICs.

Thanks guys for that input, every theory has to be developped until it’s really scientific

I agree, the Russian sub is sometimes useless, but sometimes it can be useful.

Well, this is a theory and his has to be verified.

If that sub isn’t importnant, then Russia has no VIUs at all !

Remember, the VIUs are units that you have at the beginning and you can hardly replace them, so be careful not losing them - that’s the message of my post. If one decide to not play with a navy as Germany, that units lose the VIU status for him. But if one decide to build a carrier first round as Germany, he will glad to have that cruiser + transport - for sure.

I don’t know if ever one wrote about this, but this may be of interest:

Whenever you play Axis & Allies, you have to define in the first round your VIUs and the one of your opponents. VIU are very important units.
Typical for VIUs is:

• you have them from the beginning
• you cannot afford to lose them

The last point has to different forms:
VIUs that can hardly be replaced because of their costs (e.g. battleships) and/or VIUs that you can’t replace, because it takes to long to reach that place (e.g. the 2 UK infantry in South Africa)

Once you defined VIUs on the board, the VIU theory says:

• Never lose your VIUs sensless
• Don’t attack with VIUs unless it’s overwhelming
• Kill enemies VIUs whenever possible
• try to build additional units that may replace your current VIUs
• help your allies to protect their VIUs
• trading VIUs with the enemy can be good if the future consequences are checked
• don’t rely on lucky dice when attacking with VIUs (e.g. never SBR if your bomber is that precious)

–----------------

Examples:

UKs Battleship in SZ2 and UKs Tank and Fighter in Egypt are VIUs (expensive + hard to replace). Attacking them as Germany is highly desirable. For UK killing the German cruiser + transport via air attack is desirable too, as well as for UK and US is a goal to kill the Italian fleet.

VIUs in AA50:

Russia:

Only the sub in SZ 4, because you will hardly ever have enough money and less pressure to build navel units again, don’t lose your tanks or newly build air units

Germany:

the bomber, your fleet, the African units

Japan:

only the battleship, all other units are near Japan and can be replaced

UK:

the BB, the bomber, 2 Inf in SA, all units (ground + navel) near Australia, all units from Egypt to Burma

UK has naturally the most VIUs due to the vast distances to reach them. Units in SA, Egypt, India and Australia will lose their VIU status if an IC is build there, as they can now be easily replaced

Italy:

fleet  + fighter (Italy is lacking funds)

China:

the fighter

US:

as the 2 Inf and fleet at Philippines can’t be protected, US has no real VIUs, anything can be replaced. Yet its fleet at SZ 44 should be kept, those units are valuable

aa50; with NOs; Germany attacked Egypt:

I usually buy as Italy 1 Inf + 1 Art and save 3 IPC

Italy conquers Egypt + Trans Jordan, gets 11 IPC income + 2x5 IPC for NOs + 3 saved = 24 IPC total
wait for UK and US, what do they build?

If they build fleet, react round 2 with an AC + fighter.
If not, build whatever you want.

Either way, this is the most flexibel solution for Italy

page 12 allows a player to not place units that were build this round, but delay the placement to one of the following rounds.

Ok let’s try that: UK builds an  IC + 2 destroyers + cruiser  (43 IPC) in round 1, but places only the IC in India.

now round 2 rule questions:

a) placing the three navel units from round 1 that haven’t placed yet:

can they be placed only in a sea zone next to UK or also to sz 35 because in round 2 there is a new IC in India that can also be used ?

b) if placing that units in another factory is allowed in general, does this “old units” count for the IC limit, or does an Indian IC (as an example) build 3 units + place all units from previous rounds ?

I slightly redesigned my concept of ATGs:

ATGs should be 1(2)/2(3)/1 units.

1/2/1 vs all units except tanks
2/3/1 vs tanks

It’s more logical to get the + 1 bonus against tanks as an ATG in both, attack and defense.

This makes ATGs more valuable and justifies its costs of 4 IPC.

Axis & Allies is already very complicated, especially the sub rules.

Additionally units/rules will make it more complicated.
Yet, they can make the game more interesting, maybe more balanced:

1. Fortress

cost 2 IPC
may not move
defend at 2
has no attack value

can be build in any country you control at the beginning of your turn, no IC is required there

Fortresses are 100% defensive units and may be useful for Russia, Germany, Italy, maybe UK. US and Japan will use them rarely.

2. ATG

Anti-Tank-Guns have a defense bonus against Tanks.

Cost 4 IPCs

Attack at 1, Defend at 2, movement 1
Defend at 3 if attacked by tanks.

Example:

Attacker has 10 infantry and 5 tanks.
Defender has 13 ATGs. 5 ATGs defend at a 3 due to a 1:1 relation to attacking tanks, 8 defend at a 2.

ATGs will mainly used by Russia and Germany for the Eastern front. Maybe UK and US consider landing ATGs to discourage Germany to push them back by infantry and tanks, especially in France and Norway.

3. Paratroopers

Exist right now as a development, but only along with bombers. An Alternative:

Paratroopers cost 5 IPC
They move 1, attack at 1 and defend at 2 same as normal infantry.
Once they may move 3 spaces to use their paratroop ability.

Place a marker below the infantry piece to mark them as paratroopers and distinguish from normal infantry. Once they used their paratroop ability remove the marker and use them as normal infantry. If they land in a country containing a AA Gun or you fly over such a country that AA gun will try to shot the paratroopers down. Roll a dice for each paratrooper unit, any 1 will be a hit and that paratrooper units will be removed immediately.

Landing Paratroopers do attack at a 1. They can’t use the attack bonus from artillery support. Once they landed they are treated as normal infantry and may use the artillery support bonus in future battles.

Paratroopers may be useful to almost any country, but are very expensive !

4. Heavy Cruisers

Variation a)

a 3/3 unit with to hits (minor battleship)

Variation b)

a 4/4 unit with one hit (that’s much more realistic. Heavy cruisers had as strong artillery as battleships, but much weaker armory)

heavy cruisers should cost 15 IPC and could conduct shore bombardment

I am not really sure if these units will be build, as long as normal cruisers will bombard too.

5. Revised destroyers

destroyers cost 9 IPC instead of 8 but can carry one infantry unit, but no other ground unit.
All other rules remain.

History: see the invasion of Norway by Germany in WWII, when most of the infantry were transported by destroyers instead of transports.

6. revised subs

all rules remain, despite a new one:
if subs hit the attacker has the right to assign a hit to a transport. This can’t by denied by the defender.

This is realistic as well. A lot of subs only attacked transports. They sunk them but eventually got sunk themselves by convoy defending destroyers or fighters.

So far my ideas, there are other ideas as well, be free to mention them. Maybe Larry Harris
will pick one of those ideas for the next edition of Axis & allies !?  :wink:

What about the following idea:

Additionally to ICs which still cost 15$ any Nation may build barracks.

here my rules:

• barracks cost 6 IPC
• barracks may be build according to the same rules as ICs
• barracks allow to build as many units as the IPC value of the country (same rule as ICs) but only infantry
• If a country has an IC, no barracks can be build there
• If barracks are captured, they can be used the next turn, exactly as ICs
• barracks can be SBR’d but get only 1/2 damage, rounded. A dice roll of 4 will cause 2 damage markers, a roll of 3 just 1 damage marker.
• tanks blitzing into a country with barracks must stop

My Idea: make the game more interesting, have more places where units are build and create much more battle areas, especially in the Aisia/Pacific theatre
Only Russia may not use barracks, but all other nation may prefer barracks instead of ICs.

reasonable countries for barracks:

Germany: Poland, France, Hungary, Romania, maybe Egypt
UK: India,South Africa, Egypt, Burma, Norway, Finland, East Indies and/or Borneo, maybe Australia
US: Philippines, Norway, Finland, maybe Brazil
Japan: FIC, Burma, Manchuria, Kiangsu, East Indies and/or Borneo
Italy: Egypt

At a first glance barracks seem to make ICs obsolete, but remember, only infantry be be build there.

So what do you think ?

Our way to balance the game:

UK gets a factory from the beginning (and may build units in Round 1 there) in India, while NOs are used without any changes. We had very interesting games with that so far.

@hakan:

Thanks for all comments.

But… Isn’t it possible to somehow calculate this a little bit? Let’s say, for example, that you will attack a territory with 30 inf (90 IPC). At what “stack cost” do you have to beat this stack 70% of the times?

d) 26 inf + 8 arm (118 IPC)
e) 16 inf + 16 art (112 IPC)

Surly, the cheapest stack is inf+art in different combination, but it’s not that big difference if you compare it to the inf+arm stack. And with panzer you have the flexibility. So, I don’t know. It’s quite even steven…

I redesigned this a little bit

Defender: 30 Inf

Attacker A = 26 Inf + 8 Arm (118 IPC) ; 34 units, defense 76 - offense 50
Attacker B = 22 Inf + 13 Art (118 IPC);  35 units, defense 70 - offense 61

So we see the big difference immediately - tank + inf are better in defense, but worse in offense

A realistic result of that battles is:

Attacker A wins - 7 Arm remaining (7 units, defense 21 - offense 21)
Attacker B wins - 12 Art remaining (12 units, defense 24 - offense 24)

a clear edge for the Inf/art combo

Anyway, in AA50 there are nations that are limited in their income and even with NOs they are not really rich. These nations are: USSR, Italy and UK.

For Italy 10 IPC - 2 inf + 1 Art is much better then 2 Arm

For Russia 30 IPC may be 4 inf, 2 Art, 2 Arm. As Italy, USSR is short on money, art is a perfect buy for potential offense.

For UK it’s clever to build 1 inf + 1 art for the transports. Save that money as Uk for other purpose, an eventual IC in Norway in Round 4 might be such an idea. But in that round, when buying such an IC, UK still has to buy new inf + art for the next round, so saving some funds is necessary to buy both, IC and units. Later, when UK having 4 transports and enough money, 4 inf + 4 arm are surely better for a landing in France to prevent an Italian counter due to the better defense rating. UK wants Germany to strike back in France and so stop the reinforcements to the eastern front. Once Italy is too weak to capture France after an UK landing, the allies gain the initiative. But early on, use that UK income wisely.

For Germany, US and Japan with high income and a strong air power from the beginning, inf + tanks are superior to inf + artillery.

NOs is a fine rule, if that Russian NOs would not suck that much.

I suggest some ways of solving that problem, to still play with NOs

1. lower all NOs to 3 IPC

2. make easy NOs 3 IPC, medium ones 5 IPC and very difficult ones 7 IPC (Philippines for US is very hard)

3. Be free to create new NOs and play house rules with your friends. Especially new ones for Russia are needed.

here some ideas for Russia:

5 IPC if…allies control… 3 of the following 5 territories…Baltic States. Finnland, Belorus, East. Ukraine, Ukraine

and/or

5 IPC if Russia controls both, Karelia und Caucasus

I guess there can be many more, be creative ans invent some mew ones. They have to be fair, but not too easy. Russia should fight for its NOs, as well as other nations do.

@Gallo:

I’m on the opinion that an UK IC in India is nothing but a nice present for Hirohito… but if you want to walk that walk…

a) Since Japan moves first then UK (in 1941), watch out what Japan does on its first turn… they may not commit everything against India on their first move.

If an Indian factory seems soundable…

you should have moved two USSR infantry to Persia on Turn1
then send as many UK fighters to India via London-Moscow (turn1), Moscow-India (turn2)

Be aggressive against Japan everywhere else…

one big step-back about the India IC is that it requires a big commitment from the UK… trying on holding India you may lost Africa to the Italians and you may not be able to mount a soundable attack against Germany (specially if Germany obliterates the Royal Navy during its first turn)

1. moving UK fighters + bomber to a Russian territory = no 5 IPC NO for Russia if you use NOs !

2. your tank + fighter survived ? What the heck did the Germans roll?
   Statistically a German attack with tank from France + Inf from Morocco, all units from Lybia + Bomber from Germany will end with either German tank + bomber or only German bomber, UK units will normally die.

3. Why did Japan moved all against India and forego other targets? I don’t see.
   Japan can easily take Philippines (3Inf + art [from Japan] + 2 fighters). East Indies + Borneo will be taken both with 2 Inf. Use 2 Inf + 2 fighters for Kwangtung attack, ignore Russia, but use your transport and Cruiser from SZ 61 and attack Burma.
   Attack UKs Indian fleet with 2 fighters and land them on AC that moved SZ61 to SZ 37.

Japan is ready to take India in R2 with 1-2 Inf + art from Burma, 2 Inf from Borneo and 2 Inf from East Indies, a cruiser and 4-5 fighters (one may be lost when attacking UKs DD + transport), 2 fighters from AC in SZ 37 + 2-3 fighters from FIC.

Yes, UKs AA gun may shoot down another fighter, but the attack is overwhelming.

If UK pulls out everything - are they strong enough to attack 7 ground units ??
Even if - Japan will capture India slightly und bring new units from Japan to FIC (17 IPC = 1 Transport + 2 tanks) or build 2 tanks in FIC if an IC was build there on round 1 (an interesting opening move !)

So, how to protect that round 1 IC in India?

Imagine a round 3 situation:

Italy has its fleet in SZ 15, they maybe attacked Transjordan in round 2.
a clever move would be as UK - move your complete fleet to SZ 13, this fleet should be AC + 2 ftgrs, 2 Cruisers, 2 DDs and 1-2 subs. Yes, buy subs as UK if you want to kill that Italian fleet.

So that Italien fleet is trapped!
If they control Egypt and Trans Jordan, use your Inf from Persia and a Bomber to capture Transjordan, so the Italian fleet can’t escape via Suez canal.

So what can Italy do ?

1. Attack - that’s suicidal, especially with 2 UK subs and that Russian sub in SZ 13 (russian sub moved to SZ 13 first, UK followed)

2. leave - unfortunately they can’t ; SZ 16 is also 2 spaces away from SZ 13

3. block - the best option.

This is a 2 step move:
First take ground units from Italy and recapture Transjordan
Build a DD in SZ 14 hoping to block UK fleet and use Suez canal next round.

Next Round:

Now the Russian sub will have a use. :evil: Attack that newly build Italian DD with your sub and 1-2 fighters from Caucasus (you have to land all your Russian aircraft in Stalingrad or build new one there !!). SZ 14 is 2 spaces away from Caucasus, so that fighters can fly back in NCM safely.

It doesn’t matter if that sub survives, what matters is to destroy that DD - UK will move before  Italy and will destroy that fleet easily ! (use 2 subs and 1 DD plus aircraft, you will win with overwhelming odds - do not use your cruisers if not necessary, better attack France if possible but beware of German aircraft)